contacts_add_contact_to_workflow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not state whether adding a contact to a workflow is reversible, whether it requires the workflow to be active, or what side effects might occur (e.g., triggering actions). Since the description carries little behavioral weight and annotations already cover the basic safety profile, it fails to add helpful context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, which is appropriately brief, but it omits critical information. It front-loads the core action but sacrifices clarity and guidance. The structure is efficient but under-specified, earning a middle score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., contact must exist, workflow must be active), expected outcomes, or potential errors. The openWorldHint annotation suggests side effects, but without elaboration the agent cannot anticipate consequences. Missing behavioral and usage detail makes this incomplete for safe and effective invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover contactId and workflowId with simple one-line descriptions, but eventStartTime has no description and is not explained in the tool description. The description does not clarify the format or semantics of eventStartTime, nor does it elaborate on the meaning of the IDs. With schema coverage at 67% and no compensating detail in the description, the agent has limited guidance on constructing valid calls.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Add Contact to Workflow' states the verb and resource clearly, and the name itself conveys the action. However, it is nearly identical to the tool name and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'contacts_add_contact_to_campaign' or clarify what adding to a workflow entails (e.g., adding to a specific workflow stage). It is not a tautology in the strict sense, but it adds little beyond the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions such as 'use this to enroll a contact in a workflow' or contrast it with adding to a campaign or removing from a workflow. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.